NCAA seeks TV bids for 96-team tournament

[dsfire]

Think Czabe said this morning that it was just in an investigatory stage and they'd be taking it slow.  I'd be surprised if it's anywhere close to a done deal (and sounds like you would be too).

[ChicosBailBonds]

The Selection Committee hasn't exactly been backing that theory up recently.

That's exactly my point, by expanding the field, they will go to more non-BCS schools.  The missing teams, by and large, are from non BCS conferences. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

That is because it never went from 32 to 64.  It was a slow process:

# 1939–1950: eight teams
# 1951–1952: 16 teams
# 1953–1974: varied between 22 and 25 teams
# 1975–1978: 32 teams
# 1979: 40 teams
# 1980–1982: 48 teams
# 1983: 52 teams (four play-in games before the tournament)
# 1984: 53 teams (five play-in games before the tournament)
# 1985–2000: 64 teams
# 2001—present: 65 teams

That is correct, but using this logic, you would be ok then from going from 64 to 80 and then a few years later to 96, as long as it's slow?

LOL

The bigger point is that the tournament has expanded forever and it hasn't done anything but make the tournament better and better every time.

I had a nice conversation with Dan Patrick about this earlier today.  Should be fun to watch it unfold.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, a few teams each year get knocked off each year in their conference tourneys, but that's why it's a tournament.  Just as a few good teams get knocked off in the opening round of the NCAAs.  Last year 15 of the 32 teams in the NIT were from BCS conferences, I'm not sure why you think that if the NCAA expanded it would be much different (you picked 10/32).  Just a cursory look at the BCS schools you selected shows that just being mediocre or slightly below mediocre will then get you into the big dance.  Theoretically, MU could have gotten into the dance this year in a 96 team field only having beaten DePaul x 2 (rpi of 137), Prov x 2 (98), Rutgers (120), St Johns (73), and Notre Dame (70).  That would have given them 7 wins going into the BET and put them squarely on the bubble.  If that isn't mediocre then I don't know what is.  I don't consider either of the MU teams after the years following the Final 4 good teams, but they most likely would have gotten bids under a 96 team format.

At the end of they day, this will probably happen as it's all about money, but when the field expanded from from 16 to 32 to 40 to 48 to 53 to 64 to 65, there were still a lot of BCS teams that were 4/5 games over .500 in their conference and not getting in.  Each time the tourney has expanded it has done so incrementally (except in the very early years).  Why would they expand it so dramatically this time?  Why not move it up to 72 and see how that goes?

There has been expansion in NCAA basketball but it has come from the lower ranks.  Schools that have nearly zero chance of ever winning the tournament.  Expanding the tournament to 96 will lessen the prestige and make selection Sunday and the first few rounds of the tournament much less compelling.

 

Simple, because the NIT is about TICKET revenue, which means it's advantageous for the NIT to purposely select large, BCS schools where they have the most chance to sell tickets and earn revenue.  Even under this situation, you still had more non BCS than BCS.  With the NCAA tournament, however, the games are all sold out so the NCAA is under no pressure from a ticket selling proposition to do this.

As far as the zero possibility of winning the tournament, well we could say that about about 50 of the 65 teams right now.  Why not just go back to a 16 team field then?

Finally, I originally advocated for 80 teams and would still be very happy with that.  Unfortunately it makes it difficult to run the tournament at that number.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If the top third of college basketball were to make the tournament it wouldn't mean crap to get in. 

I agree...that's why this proposal only takes the top 27% so we're good, it's not the top 1/3.

 

[MUsoxfan]

That's exactly my point, by expanding the field, they will go to more non-BCS schools.  The missing teams, by and large, are from non BCS conferences. 

They won't. If they wanted the little guy in, they'd make more an effort to get them in. When in doubt, they lean towards mediocre BCS teams. I don't see how that trend won't continue

[ChicosBailBonds]

They won't. If they wanted the little guy in, they'd make more an effort to get them in. When in doubt, they lean towards mediocre BCS teams. I don't see how that trend won't continue

I will put up big cash right now on this one.  I'll bet the first 5 years of an expanded tournament, you will see more non-BCS teams chosen than BCS teams.  The reason is simple, there will still be tremendous pressure not to take schools with conference records that are poor.  That alone will eliminate a tremendous number of schools from consideration.  They aren't going to take a 19-10 BCS school with 7-11 conference record over a WAC school that is 23-8 and finished 10-6 in conference.   The majority of schools with 20+ wins left that are not selected are non-BCS schools.  This is where most of these bids will come from.  I'd say 65% to 35%

EDIT:  Assuming it goes to more than 80 teams.  If it expands to just 68, then I agree with you....but the bigger than expansion, the more the non-BCS schools will benefit.

[IAmMarquette]

I had a nice conversation with Dan Patrick about this earlier today.

Wow Chicos, you're starting to sound just like TC. Do you think Mike McCarthy and/or Tony LaRussa have a take on it?

[TJ]

That's exactly my point, by expanding the field, they will go to more non-BCS schools.  The missing teams, by and large, are from non BCS conferences.  

I suppose that if they added 32 teams they would have to hit a few mid-majors eventually.

If they were to go with modest expansion to 72, however, based on NIT seed, the next teams in could have been Auburn, Florida, Creighton, San Diego St, St. Mary's, Penn St, & Notre Dame.  Sure that's 3 more mid-majors, but it's 4 more BCS schools.

Edit: I see you're already addressed this a couple posts above.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wow Chicos, you're starting to sound just like TC. Do you think Mike McCarthy and/or Tony LaRussa have a take on it?

McCarthy no, LaRussa...definitely.   

Dan Patrick works for us now.....he's against the tournament expansion initially, but he also said he didn't have the details of how it would work. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not a big surprise

http://web.sny.tv/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100204&content_id=8020680&oid=2&vkey=21

[ChicosBailBonds]

Bo Ryan for it as well


http://wisconsin.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=&script=content.asp&cid=1048727&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=

I suspect most coaches will be for this

[IAmMarquette]

Lunardi weighs in...

Are we excluding a national champion?

There is no good basketball reason to expand the current 64/65-team field. Unlike in major college football, no team with a legitimate chance to compete for the national championship is excluded from the existing format. Are teams that are capable of advancing a round or two occasionally passed over? Absolutely. But look at any of our "First Four Out" lists over the years and tell me if you see any potential national champions. Didn't think so.

First, let's change the play-in game

I have opposed expansion for the obvious basketball reasons. To me, the only competitive advantages are found in two or four additional doubleheaders among so-called "bubble" teams in place of the current opening round. Let's stop arguing about Arizona and St. Mary's and simply have them fight it out on a neutral court. Winners go into the main bracket as 11-12 seeds, and no automatic qualifiers are banished to Dayton without enjoying the full NCAA tournament experience.

Here's my deal-breaker: Every regular-season champion has to be an automatic qualifier in any mega-expansion proposal. The NCAA made such a provision when it took over the NIT and, by folding that 32-team field into a bigger championship format, should keep to that line of thinking. Otherwise, instead of going from eight or nine Big East teams to 10 or 11, we'd be looking at 12 to 13 (which is way too many by any measure). I think there's also a way to tie conference tournament results to eventual NCAA seeding, but I haven't had time to think it through.

Better yet, if it ain't broke …

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=ncbexperts

[willie warrior]

I'd go for 68. Allows 3 more at-large teams to get in as something like 13 seeds, and gives the bottom 8 conferences the ability to claim they won an NC2A tourney game.

Perfect world for me would be 68 teams plus ESPN/ABC gets the bid. Would allow games to be placed on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU. I can understand completely why ESPN/ABC would be enthralled to get this. It'd be a week of a lot of people clamoring to get ESPNU, kind of like the NFL Network has been able to do to some degree nationally and the Miniscule 11 Network has been able to do in this part of the world.

I guess if I had to choose between 96 teams or ESPN/ABC getting the package, I'd stay with 68 teams.

Wouldn't ESPN/ABC getting the package be bad for you guys at DTV Chicos? You guys would lose a ton of marketability with your MMM package, wouldn't you?

One thing that would enhance ESPN would be putting ESPNU in high Def

[TheButlerDidIt]

ESPNU is HD now. I think it was a relatively recent development.

[connie]

Sometimes more of a good thing is not better.  This is one of those times.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sometimes more of a good thing is not better.  This is one of those times.

Except that since we've never done it, how would we know? 

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Chicos,

Is there an assumption that all 96 games will be televised, or at least if they are televised will draw enough TV revenue to make sense?

Are people really sure that watching this year's DePaul play St. Mary's is going to generate enough TV rev to make it worthwhile?

[jmayer1]

Except that since we've never done it, how would we know?  

You could make that argument for just about anything.  The NCAA has never expanded it by such a large margin, why do it this time?  If they want to expand, do it in small increments, like has been done in the past.

It's laughable that college football was used as a comparison in that article (by Jay Wright).  Yes, almost 50% of those teams get in and it's an absolute joke.  I don't think you want to start comparing the best postseason tournament in all of sports to the worst postseason situation in all of sports.  It's not surprising that coaches are in favor of it, obviously it will make getting into the tournament a lot easier.

[MarquetteNation]

Instead of a tournament...there should be five high profile games.  Six of the teams could be the major conference champions while the other four could be selected at large by a selection committee.  The NCAA could generate interest by manufacturing four marquee matchups in various locations while the championship game would be the first and second ranked teams (as determined by both computer statistics and the associated press).

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos,

Is there an assumption that all 96 games will be televised, or at least if they are televised will draw enough TV revenue to make sense?

Are people really sure that watching this year's DePaul play St. Mary's is going to generate enough TV rev to make it worthwhile?

No question all 96 games would be televised, that's where the money comes in.  The packages will be done in advance, so the broadcasters aren't going to be paying for DePaul vs St. Mary's, they're paying for the entire thing. 

Pretty easy to setup from a tv perspective.  You're talking two extra days at most, but they could configure it differently if they wanted to.  It depends on how they wish to divide it up.

Personally, I think they are going to go to a middle number like 80 before they go to 96.  But we'll see.

The coaches want it, the NCAA wants it, the schools want it, the networks want it.....the fans will come around, they always do.  And people will laugh 10 years from now and wonder what the big deal was.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You could make that argument for just about anything.  The NCAA has never expanded it by such a large margin, why do it this time?  If they want to expand, do it in small increments, like has been done in the past.

It's laughable that college football was used as a comparison in that article (by Jay Wright).  Yes, almost 50% of those teams get in and it's an absolute joke.  I don't think you want to start comparing the best postseason tournament in all of sports to the worst postseason situation in all of sports.  It's not surprising that coaches are in favor of it, obviously it will make getting into the tournament a lot easier.

So many things were seen as laughable at one point.....Ron Burgandy help us out.   

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/_VRKKSr669U" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/_VRKKSr669U</a>

[GGGG]

You could make that argument for just about anything.  The NCAA has never expanded it by such a large margin, why do it this time?  If they want to expand, do it in small increments, like has been done in the past.

It's laughable that college football was used as a comparison in that article (by Jay Wright).  Yes, almost 50% of those teams get in and it's an absolute joke.  I don't think you want to start comparing the best postseason tournament in all of sports to the worst postseason situation in all of sports.  It's not surprising that coaches are in favor of it, obviously it will make getting into the tournament a lot easier.

I don't view the bowl season as an absolute joke.  No one pretends that the New Orleans Bowl is on par with the Rose Bowl.  It is just a way for fans to watch their team again.  As someone who loves college football, the more games the better.